Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

The awardee made the following revisions in response to peer review:

  • The awardee revised the explanation of randomization by emphasizing that it was impossible to randomly assign participants to exercise leaders because some facilities had too few leaders. Consequently, the resulting comparisons of outcomes for patients receiving the intervention from exercise leaders or facility staff should be considered exploratory and interpreted with caution.
  • The awardee explained their choice of the standard intervention as the comparator to On the Move. The standard intervention did not have a walking or weight-bearing component, but the awardee stated this was typical for interventions usually offered at study sites.
  • The awardee emphasized the exploratory nature of the heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) analyses, because they were not prespecified. The awardee indicated that readers should consider the findings tentative.
  • The awardee provided more information about strengths and limitations of the study sample. The awardee addressed reviewers’ concerns about the homogeneity of the study population by commenting that although the sample had limited racial and ethnic diversity, participants’ living arrangements were diverse. The investigators also noted the exclusion from the study of patients with significant movement and sensory disabilities, or who needed assistive devices.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Jennifer S. Brach, PhD
University of Pittsburgh at Pittsburgh
$2,117,804
10.25302/3.2018.CE.13046301
On the Move: Optimizing Participation in Group Exercise to Prevent Walking Difficulty in At-Risk Older Adults

Key Dates

September 2013
June 2017
2013
2017

Study Registration Information

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
Health Conditions Health Conditions These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them. View Glossary
Populations Populations PCORI is interested in research that seeks to better understand how different clinical and health system options work for different people. These populations are frequently studied in our portfolio or identified as being of interest by our stakeholders. View Glossary
Intervention Strategy Intervention Strategies PCORI funds comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) studies that compare two or more options or approaches to health care, or that compare different ways of delivering or receiving care. View Glossary
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: March 4, 2022